Climate change sociology: Past contributions and future research needs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
That the causes and consequences of climate change are deeply entangled with socioeconomic systems is no longer a provocative statement.Contributions by social scientists have grown impressively in both volume and influence recently.Sociology has played a particularly prominent role in the field, and several excellent recent reviews far more comprehensive than what I will offer here are available [1][2][3][4][5][6].In what follows, I highlight notable findings offered by sociologists who focus on climate change, followed by key priorities in future research.Notable sociological contributions, representing findings with strong agreement across several studies, fall into in three main areas, including social drivers; social impacts; and the power and politics associated with responses to climate change.The research record articulating multiple social factors and their relative weight as drivers of climate change represent what is perhaps the strongest and most extensive set of sociological contributions to climate science and policy.Especially of note is the degree to which sociological research contradicts persistent claims in political discourse, including, first, the fact that population size has at most an indirect association with emissions, in fact economic growth is far more consequential.Second, individual consumption practices and climate action are shaped by multiple socio-cultural factors that belie simplistic, rationalist, 'knowledge deficit' models of human behaviour-information is necessary but by no means sufficient to motivate climate concern and action.The prevailing finding emerging from research on the social impacts of climate change is the inequitable nature of those impacts.Because those peoples who are the most vulnerablenotably many global south regions, and BIPOC, Indigenous, and non-cismales in all regionsare also the least accountable for the emissions that produced the risks in the first place, the inequitable distribution of climate risks also represents a grievous injustice.Third, sociologists have made resoundingly clear that responding to climate change has relatively less to do with technology and economics, where attention is so often directed, and far more to do with power and politics.From the local to the international scale, sociologists have provided evidence of the strong arm of power relations and their influence over political processes in the climate sphere.Most notable has been irrefutable evidence provided of the orchestration of climate denial through the deployment of disinformation by representatives and allies of the fossil fuel industry, effectively postponing proactive policy responses in many western polities for decades.Also notable are studies evidencing the role of media institutions in attenuating the perceived risk of climate change among publics.Sociologists attribute this institutional influence at least in part to the deployment of discourses-human exceptionalism, neoliberalism and technological optimism being particularly consequential-that prescribe a narrow ontological lens through which problem and solution spaces are created.Other studies
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,018 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».